Exposure and work‐related factors in subjects with hand eczema: Data from a cross‐sectional questionnaire within the Lifelines Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is the most frequently occurring occupational skin disease. However, studies on non‐occupational wet exposure, occupations not considered as high‐risk, and socioeconomic factors regarding HE are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between HE and occupational and non‐occupational wet exposure and work‐related factors in the Dutch general population. METHODS: Within the Lifelines Cohort Study, participants with HE were identified by a digital, add‐on questionnaire that included questions regarding exposure. Data on work‐related and socioeconomic factors were collected from baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 57 046 participants (42.0%) were included. Occupational and non‐occupational wet exposure were positively associated with HE in the past year (odds ratios (ORs) 1.35, [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22–1.49] and 1.34, [95%CI: 1.17‐1.53], respectively). Positive associations for high‐risk occupations (OR 1.20, [95%CI: 1.06‐1.36] for personal care workers in health services and OR 1.25, [95%CI: 1.06‐1.48] for nursing and midwifery professionals), occupations not considered as high‐risk (OR 1.19, [95%CI: 1.03‐1.39] for legal, social and religious associate professionals) and higher levels of education were found (OR 1.17, [95%CI: 1.04‐1.32] and OR 1.18, [95%CI: 1.04‐1.34] for middle and high level, respectively). CONCLUSION: Preventive strategies for HE should focus on avoidance of all wet exposure, regardless of origin. In addition, job tasks instead of job title should be taken into account. As previous results on the association between HE and socioeconomic factors differ, future research should focus on a uniform definition of socioeconomic status

The long-term effect of dupilumab on chronic hand eczema in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis:52 week results from the Dutch BioDay Registry

Background: The hands are a common predilection site of atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab is licensed for the treatment of AD but not for chronic hand eczema (CHE), while CHE is challenging to treat. Objectives: To evaluate the long-term effect of dupilumab on hand eczema (HE) in patients with AD from the BioDay Registry. Methods: A prospective observational study of adult patients with HE, treated for AD with dupilumab. Patients with a HE severity of at least moderate at baseline were considered for analysis. Patients with other concomitantly systemic immunosuppressive treatments were excluded. Clinical effectiveness on HE severity, using the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) and photographic guide, and health-related quality of life, using the Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire (QOLHEQ), were evaluated. Results: A total of 72 patients were included. HECSI-75 was achieved by 54/62 patients (87.1%) and HECSI-90 by 39/72 (62.9%) at 52 weeks. Based on the photographic guide, 56/62 patients (90.3%) achieved the endpoint of ‘clear’ or ‘almost clear’. Mean QOLHEQ reduction was −63.5% (95% confidence interval −38.23 to −27.41). There was no difference in response between HE subtypes. Conclusions: The results from this study hold promise for dupilumab to be a suitable treatment option for isolated CHE

Validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Limited research has been conducted on the measurement properties of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) questionnaire, particularly in relation to interpretability. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the Dutch RECAP in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in a Dutch tertiary hospital, recruiting adults with AD between June 2021 and December 2022. Patients completed the RECAP questionnaire, reference instruments and anchor questions at the following three timepoints: baseline, after 1-3 days and after 4-12 weeks. Hypotheses testing was used to investigate single-score validity and change-score validity (responsiveness). To assess reliability, both standard error of measurement (SEMagreement) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCagreement) were reported. To assess the interpretability of single scores, bands for eczema control were proposed. To investigate the interpretability of change scores, both smallest detectable change (SDC) and minimally important change (MIC) scores were determined. To estimate the MIC scores, four different anchor-based methods were employed: the mean change method, 95% limit cut-off point, receiver operating characteristic curve and predictive modelling. RESULTS: In total, 200 participants were included (57.5% male sex, mean age 38.5 years). Of the a priori hypotheses, 82% (single-score validity) and 59% (responsiveness) were confirmed. Known-group analyses showed differences in the RECAP scores between patient groups based on disease severity and impairment of the quality of life. The SEMagreement was 1.17 points and the ICCagreement was 0.988. The final banding was as follows: 0-1 (completely controlled); 2-5 (mostly controlled); 6-11 (moderately controlled); 12-19 (a little controlled); 20-28 (not at all controlled). Moreover, a single cut-off point of ≥ 6 was determined to identify patients whose AD is not under control. The SDC was 3.2 points, and the MIC value from the predictive modelling was 3.9 points. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The RECAP has good single-score validity, moderate responsiveness and excellent reliability. This study fills a gap in the interpretability of the RECAP. Our results indicate a threshold of ≥ 6 points to identify patients whose AD is 'not under control', while an improvement of ≥ 4 points represents a clinically important change. Given its endorsement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiatives, the results of this study support the integration of RECAP into both routine clinical practice and research settings.</p

Experiences from daily practice of upadacitinib treatment on atopic dermatitis with a focus on hand eczema:Results from the BioDay registry

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness of upadacitinib on atopic dermatitis (AD), hand eczema (HE) and HE in the context of AD are limited.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on AD and on HE in patients with AD.Methods: This prospective observational cohort study includes clinical outcomes: Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI), Photographic guide; and PROMs: average pruritus and pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of the past week, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient-Oriented Eczema, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT), Patient Global Assessment of Disease (PGAD), Quality Of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire (QOLHEQ) at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16 of upadacitinib-treated patients. Adverse events were monitored during each visit.Results: Thirty-eight patients were included, of which 32 patients had HE. At Week 16, EASI-75 was achieved by 50.0%. Absolute cutoff score NRS-pruritus ≤4 was reached by 62.5%, POEM ≤7 by 37.5%, DLQI ≤5 by 59.4%, ADCT &lt;7 by 68.8%, and PGAD rating of at least ‘good’ by 53.1%. HECSI-75 was achieved by 59.3% and (almost) clear on the Photographic guide by 74.1%. The minimally important change in QOLHEQ was achieved by 57.9%. Sub-analysis in patients with concomitant irritant contact dermatitis showed no differences. Safety analysis showed no new findings compared to clinical trials.Conclusions: Upadacitinib can be an effective treatment for patients with AD and concomitant HE in daily practice. Future studies should focus on the effectiveness of upadacitinib on chronic HE, especially on the different etiological subtypes of HE, including HE in non-atopic individuals.</p

Remote severity assessment in atopic dermatitis:Validity and reliability of the remote Eczema Area and Severity Index and Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index

Background: Reliable assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD) severity is necessary for clinical practice and research. Valid and reliable remote assessment is essential to facilitate remote care and research. Objectives: Assess the validity and reliability of the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) based on images and patient-assessed severity based on the Self-Administered EASI (SA-EASI). Methods: Whole-body clinical images were taken during consultation from children with AD. After consultations, caregivers completed the SA-EASI and provided images from home. Four raters assessed all images twice using EASI. Results: A total of 1534 clinical images and 425 patient-provided images were collected from 87 and 32 children. Excellent (0.90) validity, good inter (0.77) and intrarater reliability (0.91), and standard error of measurement (4.31) was found for the EASI based on clinical images. Feasibility of patient-provided images showed limitations with missing images (43.8%) and quality issues (23.1%). However, good validity (0.86), inter (0.74) and intrarater reliability (0.94) were found when assessment was possible. Moderate correlation (0.60) between SA-EASI and EASI was found. Limitations: Low portion patient-provided images. Conclusion: AD severity assessment based on images strongly correlates with in-person AD assessment. Good measurement properties confirm the potential of remote assessment. Moderate correlation between SA-EASI and in-person EASI suggest limited value of self-assessment.</p